|
TEAM
REPRESENTATIVES - Dave GREENWOOD (Marussia), Tom McCULLOUGH (Sauber), James
KEY (Toro Rosso), Jonathan NEALE (McLaren), Pat FRY (Ferrari), Paul MONAGHAN
(Red Bull Racing)
Q: Dave if I may start with you. You've got a new partnership starting... I
guess it's started already. In fact, that's the question: how's it going?
Dave GREENWOOD: Yes, it's going extremely well at the minute. The
partnership has been running since just around the time of the August break.
Obviously a lot of data going back and forth, mainly on the design side at
the minute - the big challenge of integrating the engine within the chassis
is what we've been looking at, the cooling side, those kinds of issues. So,
it's going well. It's progressing well. Everything's on target at the minute
so we're very happy with what's happening.
Q: There have been quite a few changes to the team's technical operation.
How's that coming along?
Greenwood: Yeah, we were disappointed to see Pat leave, he was a big part of
rebuilding our team. But really, it's Pat's legacy that's left behind, which
is carrying on. So it's all the same designers, the same aerodynamicists,
the same people leading those team so really we're just getting on with the
job in hand and just fully focused on the 2014 car.
Q: When you say his legacy, was that an organisational legacy - putting up
structures?
Greenwood: Absolutely. Putting up structures, discipline, good engineering
practices, all the good stuff engineers should do every day and just making
sure everyone's doing it and they're all on the same sheet.
Q: Tom, obviously a fantastic result last weekend with fourth and in fact
you've also scored points in the last three races. What's changed, what's
different?
Tom McCULLOUGH: To be honest we started the year uncompetitively, in
position. The pace from the midfield wasn't too far but we just weren't
scoring the points. We kept coming home from every race weekend, analysing
the data, both in low-fuel qualifying and long-run race pace and thinking to
ourselves 'we're not that far away, but we're just the wrong side'. We
decided to push on the development of the car. We introduced our biggest
update package by far for Budapest - totally changed the concept of the rear
of the car aerodynamically. Did a lot of work really from the front wing
right the way through to the rear wing on the car - it's a very different
car to what was actually launched. And we've just addressed the main
problems that were limiting us from a car balance and a lap time point of
view. The change of tyres happened around the same time too, so lowering the
front ride height on a Formula One car tend to help you as well. But,
fundamentally, for us the biggest difference really started in Budapest. We
didn't score points but we saw how the car was working aerodynamically and
we've just built on that from there really.
Q: And now you're locked in a battle in the Constructors' Championship with
your former colleague and now neighbour up there from Toro Rosso. So how's
the development? Is that still continuing?
McCullough: We brought forward our final update package from India to the
previous race in Korea, so there are now no more new parts on our car
between now and the end of the year. We've had to push the development of
this year's car a little bit more than we wanted to, just because we were on
the back foot at the start of the year and we had a few problems to address.
So, we've been developing both cars in parallel, this year's and next year's
car. At the moment, level on points. We were a bit lucky with some
circumstances last weekend but I think as Jean-Eric said yesterday, it's
sort of game on from here really. We're starting with the same points,
pretty similar car performance from track to track, there's not a lot in it.
So, there's going to a good little fight between now and the end of the
year.
Q: Yes. James, as JEV said yesterday, it's now a five-race championship for
you. What are your thoughts on it?
James KEY: I think what Tom says reflects it well. It is going to be close,
to the point where certain tracks and certain conditions suit the different
cars slightly differently. It's going to be tight. It's exciting to be in a
battle like that. But not where you want to be with five races to go with a
massive regulation change next year. It's another balancing act. I think
it's going to be interesting and it is a five-race championship. Starting
from this point the rest is all information we can use in these next five
races.
Q: What's Toro Rosso's reaction going to be? Have you stopped you
development or have you got more coming?
Key: On the aero side we have. We brought our last bits in Singapore. We've
got a few small items to come. Mechanically, there's sort of an ongoing
development process a little bit with trying to adapt to the tyre change
still because that had a negative effect on us we think. We kind of know why
but there are still a few things to do. There's a little bit of that going
on but fundamentally the car is what it is now, there's nothing major coming
along at all at this stage. And clearly with next year's car very much the
focus of the team there's not much resource to do that.
Q: So, it's really almost going to be track specific from now on?
Key: I think yeah it's potentially going to be down to small detail.
Q: Jonathan, obviously Honda is looming but quite a long way away still.
What is the situation? Did you go and seen them, have you been to see them
here. How closely are you now working with them?
Jonathan NEALE: We are seeing them here during the course of this weekend.
It's an exciting proposition for us to be back with them. We've been working
very closely for 10 months or so since we dropped the flag, which is not
long in Formula One terms but they're a powerful organisation and moving
heaven and earth at the moment and that's an exciting prospect. But although
that's on the horizon we're very much focused on the work we're doing with
Mercedes at the moment because, as the others have alluded to, the step
change in regulations for next year means we've got to do the job twice in
two years, so we've got our work cut out.
Q: And in terms of drivers that still seems to be fairly fluid as well?
Neale: Yeah, as Martin and Jenson said during the Korean Grand Prix weekend
we've confirmed what we're doing on that side but the other side if still
open for discussion. But we're under no immediate pressure. I know there's a
lot of media expectation, I understand that but there's nothing in the
regulations, no structural reason why we'd want to make that decision
without careful consideration. So that's what we're doing.
Q: Still very much watch this space then?
Neale: Yeah, very much so.
Q: Pat, first of all, a big challenge from Mercedes in the Constructors'
Championship. How much is that actually hurting 2014?
Pat FRY: In terms of development, we've got some parts coming through for
the next couple of races but that's already in the pipeline, that's not
really affecting the 2014. Obviously it's quite a close-fought battle with
them. They've got outstanding qualifying pace and their race pace is
sometimes good, sometimes bad. Again, I expect that'll be another one of
those five-race championships you were just talking about.
Q: Was Korea a bit of a blip? You'd actually finished second in the previous
three races.
Fry: Yeah. I think where we qualified in Korea is similar to what we've been
able to do before really and there's no point hiding behind our poor
qualifying pace. The race, in reality, we were caught in traffic and
couldn't get past so credit to the people who were there holding us up a
little.
Q: So is it looking better for this weekend?
Fry: I hope so, yes. So far.
Q: Paul, obviously huge progress since the summer break. Things have
completely changed, you've dominated every race since then. What changed?
Paul MONAGHAN: A few small items. It's been remarkably subtle, the pieces
that have gone onto the car but the collective effect has been enormously
positive and it's spread to many areas and that's opened up a few little
other paths of development which we've managed to exploit and yes, we've
been very lucky - and enjoyed it.
Q: Obviously you had a huge amount of damage on Mark's car last weekend. Can
you give us some indication of what's been required since then?
Monaghan: It's very easy to summarise. Pretty much everything behind the oil
radiator was ruined. So it's a whole new car from the cockpit backwards for
him. New chassis, or a replacement chassis, and everything is new there
behind it.
Q: Was that all built up here, did you have all the spares with you?
Monaghan: The majority of them actually were with us, yes. A few parts have
made their way out here but we've survived remarkably well.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Dan Knutson - Auto Action and National Speedsport News) Paul, as Mark's
time in F1 winds down, give us an idea of how it has been to work with him
over the years?
Monaghan: I've known him since 2002, I think, when he was Renault test
driver. He was committed then, he's still very committed now, always
professional, always gives good feedback. He complements Sebastian extremely
well. They both contribute to car development and he's continuing to do so.
It's been at outstanding career, hasn't it? Very impressive.
Q: (Dieter Rencken) Gentlemen, there has been a lot of talk about Formula
One possibly adopting customer cars. Now this concept could put some of you
out of a job for obvious reasons and turn others into super salesmen. Where
do you stand on this particular issue from an engineering or technical
perspective?
Neale: It's a contentious subject which of course is why you asked the
question. I think that on the one hand Formula One still has to be the
pinnacle of motor sport and there is a certain sense of technical endeavour
in that, providing that we moderate that from a financial point of view.
Customer cars is a game-changer, certainly for the independent teams; it
fundamentally changes that business model and I think before Formula One
goes about that, I think it needs to look at the economic sustainability of
the various business models that exist. Whether you're premium brand,
whether you're independent or whether you're an entrant into it, then in any
market sense, you make sure that you've got something that works
holistically. Technically, for us, it's not as big a deal. I think
commercially it's a much bigger issue but I don't think the technical guys
will say it's too much of a challenge. But it would fundamentally change for
me what Formula One is and I think Formula One is about the pinnacle of
motor sport and that technical element is very important to it, and I
believe that the independent teams would say the same thing.
Fry: Well, I suppose in reality it's more a question for the team principals
than engineers really. From an engineering point of view, I'm sure it would
be relatively easy to put something in place but it's more, as Jonathan was
saying, about which way do we want to see the sport going.
Monaghan: From a purely technical point of view, Formula One is the
Constructors' championship - there's a Drivers' championship and a
Constructors' championship and therefore, solely from that point of view,
then we ought to compete against one another. However, we currently sell
parts to other teams as we're permitted to do so, so an amount of
part-sharing, to ease the burden on other teams that wish to buy certain
components from us, then I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. If
that expands a little bit and all the teams agree, then it's probably a
helpful thing for the sport.
Greenwood: Personally, I think we've got the balance about right at the
minute. What you can and can't buy from someone else is probably about the
right place and still gives us the ability to be engineers and go off and
design things and not just take wholesale someone else's parts. I think in
effect it allows us to buy the really complicated bits - gearboxes,
hydraulics etc - and then lets us go off and concentrate on the other parts.
McCullough: Yeah, I really can't add too much more. For us, as
performance-base engineers running a spec car or a customer car wouldn't be
as much fun. Like Dave was just saying, some of the more complicated
expensive parts with a lot of tooling research and development, I think the
balance is pretty good at the moment. Then we, as trackside engineers, can
push hard on the performance side of the car and that's a fantastic
opportunity for people like myself working with great wind tunnels, great
bunch of people, just developing performance.
Q: James, Toro Rosso have just invested quite a lot in their technical
assets recently.
Key: Absolutely. It's often maybe misunderstood but Toro Rosso's very much a
team in its own right. We work well with Red Bull where we can, for example
the same engine for next year and so on but yes, we have invested. I think,
certainly, there's a commercial side which is not within the remit of
technical directors to comment on but technically it's not difficult but
there's a big emotional thing there because we are all competitive people
who want to go and beat the other guy and a big part of that is making your
own car so it's quite a big topic on a number of levels, I think.
Q: Anything further to add, Jonathan, having heard from the technical
directors?
Neale: Only that I would echo that the balance of being able to trade parts
to a team that maybe has a smaller budget or is a new entrant I think is a
really important part of attracting investors in, because as in any business
you want to invest what resource you have in what makes a difference and it
takes time to put the capital footprint down and to put the competence in
place. If you're trying to do all that from day one, your chance of survival
and then running properly into the series... I think the risk is induced and
you make it less attractive as an investment proposition.
Q: (Sam Collins - RaceCar Engineering) Question for the guys in the back
row: one of the things you guys are indulging in is a battle for
Constructors' positions but at the same time you're trying to develop quite
a complicated car for next year within the resource restriction agreement.
How are you managing the cost of developing the car against the cost of
trying to get those points to get the Constructors' positions and the money
it pays out, particularly in the case of Marussia as well?
Greenwood: To a certain extent we have thrown most of our weight behind 2014
and quite a long time ago but that's not to say we've not had small
developments which have come recently and they've been extremely
cost-effective developments which has helped as well and the financial
burden of 2014 is big as well. Basically, by judging small mechanical
upgrades that can maybe help optimise the aerodynamics of the car - by that,
obviously, I mean suspension to allow you to run in the place and the track
to get the best downforce from the map you've got - so we've worked a lot on
those small parts which can give you gains for not very much money and also
not very much lead time which is good. So we're still doing a certain amount
of filtering back ideas from the track back to design: is it easy to design,
is it easy to make, can we do it for the next race? Yes, OK, let's go for
it, but the emphasis is very much on 2014.
McCullough: Yeah, for us it's a little bit different due to the position
we've found ourselves in at the start of the year, as I sort of mentioned
earlier. Nowadays, as well as cfd, the wind tunnel, aerodynamics on the
track, these are all things which we are monitoring all the time and trying
to improve. The regulations next year are obviously quite different from our
power train point of view, the influence of the exhaust on the downforce is
obviously quite different but for us, fundamentally there are some flow
mechanisms and understanding of this year's car which we really had to get
on top of and understand before we just abandoned it an early stage and got
straight into the 2014 car, so we've had a bit of a different approach. Now,
from a resource point of view we've had to be careful not to throw too much
at this year's car but it's always that balance as an engineer:
fundamentally understanding this year's car was pivotal for us to design a
good car next year so we've played that balance.
Key: I think similar thoughts really. There are certain things you can learn
this year which will help you next year but a lot of the major bits are not
carry-over at all so it really is a balancing act of trying to efficiently
do what you can, let's say in the latter half of this season primarily, for
this year and make sure you're not losing focus on next year. It's always
tricky because when these regulations come along so does an opportunity to
take a step forward but there will be a risk of damaging your previous year
if you do that, so it's very much a balancing act. I think with the lack of
the carry-over of a lot of the stuff that you do, you have to try and - as
Tom says - tune a little bit of what you need to understand to make it
relevant for next year as well.
Q: (Dan Knutson - Auto Action and National Speedsport News) James, now that
you've had a chance to look at the cars, what caused your drivers to retire
in Korea?
Key: It was actually a brake duct issue which I've never seen before. It was
very frustrating, we had the same problem on the same lap for both drivers
and it obviously meant, unfortunately, that we had to retire them which was
a real shame. I think points for Daniel were relatively clear and secure and
in fact we were just about to tell him to push to try and catch the guy
ahead at the end so it was very frustrating for all of us. It was actually a
structural failure on brake ducts which shouldn't cause any damage but they
led to us having to retire the cars because of temperature problems.
Q: Did it have any overheating impact on the engines, is there any reduction
in life in the engines?
Key: No, we think the engines are OK. It was a general effect around the car
when you have something which moves and causes a flowfield issue. We think
we're OK there. It didn't actually cause any more damage than the parts
themselves that broke in the end but unfortunately it was enough to have to
retire.
Q: (Dieter Rencken) Jonathan, you said earlier on that you've got to do the
job twice, i.e. in 2014 and then again in 2015. A lot of teams have two
separate design operations, one working on the next year and the other on
the one thereafter. Is that the approach that you've adopted and does that
fit into McLaren's matrix system?
Neale: No. There's just so much to be done in the near term that it's all
hand on deck. We're 12 weeks away from the end of the year, 16 weeks away
from putting the car out for a test or something like that; I think a
Formula One car is 13,500 parts with the engine as one part number. There's
a lot of work to do with almost no carry-over. Everybody will be focused on
trying to get the learning out of this and I think there's so much still to
be discovered through those early two or three months of running these cars,
both from a reliability and energy optimisation, aerodynamics, the new flow
structures around the car. I'm not quite sure what you would start your next
one on so we've got to learn and digest all that first.
Q: (Sam Collins - RaceCar Engineering) How do the five engineers here feel
about going into the 2014 competition season with no running on the wet
tyres with the new powertrain?
Fry: I'm honestly not quite sure how to answer the question really. The wet
tyre performance at the moment is a little bit of a challenge and how would
you ever test a tyre and prove it I don't know. It's one of those impossible
questions to answer but I'm sure we're all going to be uneasy over that step
into the unknown. I'm sure you can say that at the first test, when we run
out on slick tyres, for instance, exactly how are the tyres going to behave
with the new powertrain. The torque delivery of the power units are quite
dramatically different and I suppose the stress that's put on the tyres in
qualifying compared to the race will also be dramatically different from
this year. I think there's a learning curve on both the slick and the wet
tyres to be honest.
Monaghan: It's going to be interesting, isn't it? We'll see what happens.
Like all of these things, once you're faced with a wet track and the car's
got to go, then you will deal with the circumstances as they arise to you.
It's a challenge, we'll all face it and we'll all treat it in different ways
and I'm sure we'll all come out the other side thinking it wasn't too bad.
Greenwood: Yeah, I echo the two guys' comments, honestly. You'll deal with
it as it happens and those who've made the best job of it will get something
out of it. I guess that's one way to look at it.
McCullough: Not really much more to add really. With the wet tyre you've got
torque delivery to deal with and you will work with those parameters to get
the most out of your package.
Key: Same. |
